Information Related to "World News and Trends - Jul/Aug 2004"
| Audio/Video |
All 25 European Union (EU) member countries have agreed in Brussels on a final draft of the new European constitution. Ironically, the stunning anti-Europe vote in the recent EU parliamentary elections probably proved to be the needed catalyst for sudden agreement. Now all EU member nations must seek approval from their national parliaments by December 2006. In addition, Britain and other countries have decided to hold national referenda, also putting approval to their individual citizens.
But what does this new constitution actually do? Noted conservative Daily Telegraph commentator Ambrose-Evans Pritchard concedes: "It brings together 450 million people from 25 states, embracing all the major strands of European culture, in a rich, peaceful and democratic union under one supreme legal document—without a mention of God" (June 19, emphasis added throughout). It also supersedes the founding document, the Treaty of Rome (1957), the Single European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty of European Union (1992) and other formal agreements at Amsterdam (1997) and Nice (2000).
How will this new constitution affect the national sovereignty of member countries? Although British Prime Minister Tony Blair has specifically stated that British national sovereignty is still intact in certain key areas like foreign policy and national defense,the European constitution itself broadly states: "This constitution shall have primacy over the laws of the Member states" (Article I-5).
Daniel Hannan, a conservative member of the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee, has written the following about foreign affairs and defense: "The Prime Minister's claim to have secured his 'red line' in this area is hard to reconcile with the text. Article I-15 reads: 'The common foreign and security policy shall cover all aspects of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security policy actively and unreservedly, in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity'" (The Sunday Telegraph, June 20).
Mr. Hannan then adds: "The constitution creates a European foreign minister and a diplomatic corps, and gives legal recognition to the EU's fledgling military forces, which have already been deployed in the Congo and Macedonia."
David Heathcoat-Amory, another conservative on the drafting body, said: "The big issue is whether power remains at Westminster [London] at all, or it goes to Brussels, and under this constitution there will be massive further transfer to Europe" (The Daily Telegraph, June 19).
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard also comments: "The text is full of ambiguities and ... clauses paving the way for Brussels to slice off more power in the future." The leading conservative British papers have all reacted in terms of the dangers of a future European superstate. Yet Mr. Blair specifically stated: "A new Europe has taken shape, a Europe in which Britain can build alliances and feel at home. A Europe in which there's no one dominant view but in which there's a Europe of flexibility and diverse progress" (Brussels speech quoted in the Daily Mail, June 19).
Public and private reaction to the new constitution in each EU country is both pro and con. The important question remains: What does the Bible say about the political future of Europe? For the answer, request our free booklets The Book of Revelation Unveiled and Are We Living in the Time of the End? (Sources: The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph, Daily Mail [all London].)
[ China breaks Hong Kong agreement
A foreign affairs journalist, John Simpson, wrote: "Last Monday the convenient fiction on which Britain handed over Hong Kong to China ('one country, two systems') came to an end. The Standing
Committee of China's parliament, the National People's Congress, declared that the inhabitants of Hong Kong could not elect their chief executive in 2007 [clearly allowed in Hong Kong's current constitution], nor vote for more than half the seats in the territory's legislature in 2008."
This decision came in spite of assurances in the original 1997 agreement and the fact that opinion polls show that two thirds of Hong Kong's population wants to elect their own leader.
The Hong Kong situation is closely related to the dangers facing Taiwan. Mr. Simpson reported that "the commander of the flotilla in the Hong Kong harbour, Vice Admiral Yao Xingyuan, was straight-spoken when someone asked him about Taiwan. 'We are ready for the call from our country,' he snapped, 'We have the capability to maintain the political stability of Taiwan.'
"In other words, China is showing that it exerts a potential control over Taiwan to match its actual control over Hong Kong. If the United States and Britain don't like it, too bad; China has the military strength to do the job if necessary."
What surprised Mr. Simpson was the almost total lack of British and Western outrage about China ripping up the Hong Kong agreement. This shows that many do not really comprehend the historic significance of former British control of this key outpost and the prophetic legacy underlying it. To understand more about this, request our free booklet The European Union's dangerous liaisons
The Wall Street Journal Europe reported that "just as the United States imposed sanctions on Damascus, the European Union is finalizing a deal to facilitate trade with Syria."
This is in spite of Damascus' long-standing contempt for basic human rights and its refusal to allow international watchdog organizations to enter the country. Even more serious is the fact that the Syrian government allows Hezbollah (a notorious terrorist organization) to indulge in such activities as illegal weapons sales, money laundering and drug dealing.
The European Union's position is manifestly inconsistent with its stated ideals "founded upon the principles of liberty, democracy and fundamental freedom, and the rule of law." Also this widens policy divides with the United States and brings the European Union (EU) into conflict with American goals and purposes in the Mideast.
China is another case in point. One correspondent, reporting from Beijing, writes: "While the EU prepares to lift the China arms embargo, Washington is urging caution, saying that Beijing has drawn up a blueprint for attacking Taiwan and could be America's main military adversary within ten years." China's primary source of new weapons has been Russia, but apparently the European Union is anxious to get in on the act.
The disturbing factor in EU trade with both Syria and China is that it exacerbates several already troubling foreign policy differences between the United States and the European Union. To see where events are headed, request our free booklet Lack of guidance in making moral decisions
In a recent poll, American adults were asked what guiding sources they used in making ethical decisions and moral choices. Surprisingly, nearly half replied that they didn't know. About one in four said moral decisions were based on their feelings, and nearly 15 percent indicated lessons from childhood. Only a paltry 13 percent based ethical decisions on the Bible.
Do these astonishing figures help explain why so many are mired in a chaotic world of immorality? The first step out of this morass is to establish the fact that the Bible is true and a reliable and authoritative guide to human conduct—the basic beginning point for right standards and values.
To understand the true basis for morality and ethics, request our free booklets The Cold War and President Reagan
In January 1981, Ronald Reagan entered the highest office of the land as U.S. president. At once he faced double-digit inflation, unhappy citizens tired of a shrinking dollar and the loss of national prestige abroad. The world was already in the tight grip of the Cold War, but it was getting even more dangerous by the day. And to top it off, the former movie actor and two-term California governor was assuming the duties of an office that had suffered many human problems.
Consider the five presidencies preceding him: Popular President John F. Kennedy was assassinated while in office; Vice President Lyndon Johnson assumed the presidency and inherited the Vietnam conflict, an increasingly unpopular war as containment without victory demoralized troops abroad and Americans at home. His personal agenda to create the "Great Society" tanked. Recognizing his untenable circumstances, he opted not to run for a second full term.
Richard Nixon, President Eisenhower's vice president who lost his bid for the 1960 presidential election, stepped up to the plate in 1968 and handily captured the presidency. But his presidency was doomed by personal paranoia and abuse of power. Risking impeachment, Mr. Nixon resigned the presidency and appointed Gerald Ford to replace him.
Mr. Ford completed Nixon's second term, but was defeated by a religious Southerner, Jimmy Carter of Georgia. An intelligent and well-meaning president, he wasn't up to the demands of national and international affairs. He signed away eventual control of the Panama Canal, a key U.S. asset for the safety of the Western Hemisphere, failed to curb runaway inflation and seemed unable to perceive the complexities of geopolitics.
To be sure, all of these presidents had good characteristics and redeeming qualities and each one strove to improve the American way of life, at home and abroad.
President Reagan was not considered to be the smartest president by those who opposed his conservative leanings. Indeed, Mr. Reagan said of his "C" grade point average at tiny Eureka College that he simply intended to keep at least a C average so he could remain on the football team. Some who worked with Mr. Reagan remarked that he was always popular and mostly right (The New York Times, June 7, p. A18).
Despite the scorn toward his intellect, his greatest critics appeared to forget that Mr. Reagan had once been one of them: he was a Roosevelt democrat until the mid-20th century, believing that big government could solve state, regional and local problems. What his greatest detractors missed was the power in communicative simplicity. President Reagan was not a shouter. When he appeared on television, he came into your living room like a friend sitting with you on the couch.
Only in recent times has history given President Ronald Reagan credit for ending the Cold War. Today, we take it for granted that President Reagan, despite weaknesses that are common to all human beings, may well have been the single greatest human reason as to why the United States is no longer fighting the morale-eroding Cold War.
Since God sets up leaders of nations and can also remove them (Daniel 4:17,34-37), and since God honors those who try to honor Him as Mr. Reagan did through his unusual moral and gracious leadership as a U.S. president, one positive scripture comes to mind: "Do you not know that a prince and a great man has fallen this day in Israel?" (2 Samuel 3:38). (Source: The New York Times.)
[ Could Britain leave the European Union?
Columnist Mark Steyn stated that "poll after poll shows that up to half the British electorate wants out of the EU" (The Daily Telegraph). This surprising figure is undergirded by the stunning success of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the recent European Union parliamentary elections. This British party advocates the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and then negotiating a fresh trade treaty with it.
Several popular British columnists and journalists do not, however, believe that Britain will leave the EU any time soon. Consider just two examples. Peter Riddell's political briefing editorial was titled: "Baloney! Britain is not on its way out of Europe." He continued in the same vein in the column: "Britain is destined to remain a perpetually awkward partner in the European Union."
Fellow columnist Tim Hames predicted a short life for the UKIP. To indicate his reasons, he wrote: "History hints that these sorts of movements when suddenly flushed with success ... soon get intoxicated with it. There are personality feuds, policy disputes and the rhetoric becoming wilder in an attempt to retain attention."
The conventional wisdom of journalists and even politicians is not always on target, however. Our free booklet The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy shows that the British peoples are in reality descendants of Joseph, great grandson of the biblical patriarch Abraham.
Those who have watched the gradual fulfillment of biblical prophecy in Europe have long wondered whether Britain would remain in the EU. Some have thought Britain might eventually leave voluntarily; others have speculated that she might be thrown out. Currently the United Kingdom imports vastly more goods both in number and value from the Continent than the U.K. exports there—indicating the EU may now need Britain more than the other way around. Britain is one of Europe's best customers.
This historic, continuously developing saga of cross-channel conflicts and difficulties has many strands, such as the argument over the contents of the new European constitution. The recurring friction between the United Kingdom and the EU over many aspects of sovereignty indicates that the two have very different legal and cultural traditions. The story bears watching in the light of Bible prophecy.
To understand the vital historical and biblical background of this situation, request the free booklets The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy and The Book of Revelation Unveiled. (Sources: The Daily Telegraph, The Times [London].)
[ back to top ]
| © 2004 United
Church of God, an International Association Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. All correspondence and questions should be sent to info@ucg.org. Send inquiries regarding the operation of this Web site to webmaster@ucg.org. |
|
Related Information:
Table of Contents that includes "World News and Trends - Jul/Aug 2004"
Origin of article "World News and Trends - Jul/Aug 2004"
Keywords: European Union China U.S. morality Reagan, Ronald
Reagan, Ronald: